It gets very tiresome to continually be told what should make me happy or what I should expect in life.

First off, same-sex marriage has everything to do with equality. If I am treated differently by my government simply because of how I was born, then I am treated differently. If that treatment is government policy or law, then I am discriminated against.

Marriage in the modern world is a civil institution not a religious institution.

Denying me the right to marry for having blue eyes would be ludicrous. Just like denying mixed marriages is now viewed as ludicrous. You are born with your skin colour.... your eye colour.... and your sexuality.

Your belief that "gays would be happy with civil unions" is wrong. Because we are not fighting for civil unions. We are fighting for equality. Full equality before the law. Do not tell me what I want or think.

Because you are WRONG!

If I am good enough to be taxed as an equal by my government, then I am good enough to be equal full stop.

As for forcing change on "unwilling cultural institutions".... how? Churches now can choose who they marry and this wouldn't change. Honestly, hardly any heterosexuals are getting married in churches now, so there is no need to worry that many gay people would want it either. No fault divorce was foisted on churches and they survived.

Indeed the very concept of freedom of religion was contrary to many churches when it was first created. So churches have been adapting to civil law for a couple of centuries now.

"an anomaly that has led to, among other things, bereaved partners facing huge inheritance-tax bills on the death of a spouse."

What? So a law supported predomiantly by the republican party means indivduals have to pay MORE tax?

Where is an outraged Grover Norquist? Where are the angry white men in three corner hats? Don't they realise this means that talented American entreprenuers now have NO incentive to work hard, start businees or save for the furture?

Is there a finite amount of "marriage" going around, and we don't have enough to let gay people have some?

One of the more cogent things said about last election was how the decline of two parent family and the decline of marriage in general has made more people hostile to conservative ideas. Well, 10 million more married men and women, mostly white, the Republicans should be all for this.

It isn't "open and shut" because of the nature of our federal system and history. The majority of states have passed either statutes or constitutional amendments stating that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid. Also, these same laws explicitly reject the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Justice Scalia will, no doubt, latch onto the historical argument. That is, the Full Faith and Credit Clause has NEVER been used to force a state to recognize a marriage against its will. This was true even when some states refused to recognize interracial marriage. Certainly the case for using the Clause is more compelling in the case of interracial marriage. Given this history, it is unlikely that the Court's opinion will rely heavily on that Clause.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with changing cultural institutions. The problem with marriage is it is also a religious/cultural institution.

If the issue was purely to have the same legal status and rights as married individuals than gays would be happy with civil unions. But they are not.

This is more about forcing change of belief on unwilling cultural institutions (religious). I agree with the concept of free will, but not at the cost of freedom of belief as enshrined in the bill of rights.

The gay community has been asked again and again and again what we think of marriage. And the answer is invariably the same as most heterosexuals. Public, social and legal recognition and protection of a relationship.

Seperate but equal doesn't work.

You then make a classic mistake. The government denies marriage to same sex couples and then people complain that we don't live or act like those in a heterosexual marriage do. If you deny people something, don't be hypocritical by complaining that we then act differently.

Either way, what heterosexual or homosexual couples get up to in or out of the bedroom is no one's business. As long as no law is not being broken, then what does it matter? Last year 106,000 Australian couples got married. And yet 49,000 couples got divorced. That's nearly 50%. Obviously (to paraphrase you) most straights support getting divorced which contradicts the actual reason for getting married.

Not a reason to abolish marriage altogether is it?

As for the US census; like many, you have heard this and repeated it parrot fashion as an actual fact. Do some research, the US census doesn't collect information on sexual orientation.

It may be important to emphasize that marriage and domestic relations are areas that have traditionally been regarded as purely state concerns. This is why DOMA was, and remains, offensive to those of us on the (perhaps vestigial) libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

Like the dodo, the moa, and other curious ratites with vestigial wings, libertarian conservatives -- where not extirpated completely -- now serve mainly as ungainly moving target practice for those equipped with modern rhetorical weapons. Yet, an awful lot of constitutional law still on the books still reflects our quaint beliefs; and the Court may well decide to blow the dust off a few of those decisions and trot them out one more time.

Could someone with a Constitutional Law background please explain to me how the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1) doesn't make this an open and shut case. Texas seem OK with my marriage license from Michigan, how can they discriminate against a same sex one from Massachusetts?

This is one issue where the conservatives are hamstrung by their unnatural relationship with their religious conservative wing. The AIDS epidemic was largely initiated by homosexuals running rampant and sleeping with multiple partners. Education has largely but not completely shifted the epidemic to poor straights who use injection drugs or who consort with such people. The long term solution is to encourage monogamy amongst homosexuals, gay marriage does that. Republicans consistently win married couples with children. Gay marriage swells those ranks. Republicans as GSENSEI notes prefer lower taxes, gay marriage provides that. Also there are peripheral issues. Educated whites tend to go overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Part of this is because of the social backwardness of Republican positions. What if the Republican party transformed itself into a fiscally conservative party that was in favor of freedom from government intrusion, they might pick up the nation's professional class. It seems that their hatred of gays and their liaison with bible trumpery is getting in the way of their interests. Perhaps they will pick up a Supreme Court victory to ease their pain. More likely, I think they will be given more time outside of government to reflect on the folly of trying to cram the government into a place that it doesn't belong, the bedroom.

Yes, they were traditionally state concerns because no one believed that a state would attempt to warp the definition of marriage so drastically. Libertarianism has its limits. If you can't accept those limits, go buy a piece of land somewhere and re-enact the Wild West.

What exactly is this "gay agenda/myth" that you speak of? What that homosexuality is normal? That homosexuality occurs in every culture and race on this planet?

I'd really love to hear what my "agenda" is or what "myth" I am part of. If you really believe this then you will be easily be able to qualify that belief.

"liberals won't reason with you they will just call you names and insult you". Hang on a minute. Don't you then go on to call people "ideological religious crazies" and white people intolerant.

I especially liked your recent post 2 days ago: "Yes you proved youre a moron, congrats. and your idiotic post provide the evidence. Come back when you can calm down and act like an adult instead of ranting like a bipolar religious zealot."

Who is name calling now?

Indeed generalising about an entire race of people by calling them intolerant is actually racist.

So now you are not only intolerant but also racist.

But honestly the most farcical part of your comment is "so annoying living in the West with such small mindedness".

You really should look up the definition of small mindedness because so far your seem to be fulfilling that definition quite well. Indeed after escaping from "religious fundamentalists" you now find that you are siding with them. Perhaps you should look up the definition of hypocrite as well.

I throw back some more of your own words: "insult everyone, never actually provide any evidence or use reasoning and then say you're right."

Considering you have claimed to be entirely non-religious, your anti-gay stance (I won't call it homophobia) is really rooted in any logic.

Perhaps you escaped to the wrong country. Though considering you have shown yourself to be intolerant, racist, illogical, small minded and a hypocrite.... perhaps you are fitting in quite well.

Hyunsmith, you're flat out wrong. This has EVERYTHING to do with equality.

"If the issue was purely to have the same legal status and rights as married individuals than gays would be happy with civil unions. But they are not."

I'm going to laugh off your claim about knowing what gays will be happy with, and instead tell you to open your American history book... ready? "Civil Union" is exactly like "separate but equal". How well did that work out? Do share.

Cloudwarrior, you agree that open relationships are widely accepted in the gay community. In the Australian context, the Marriage Act states clearly states that marriage is a monogamous lifetime commitment.

"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

Are you also going to lobby the government to get monogamy removed or will you just pick and choose which parts of the law to support?
If you dont support the entire meaning of marriage why change the law at all ??

Yes mate I did check the US Census website before replying and I repeat my statement. The US Census does not collect information on sexual orientation.

You claimed "The last US census poll showed that gay couples amounted to only 1%"

1% of households with 'couples'. You decry that perhaps "the other 99% should have a better understanding of gay relationships before redefining a core element of society".

Can you not see the deficiency in your own logic? You keep complaining that same-sex relationships are tiny. You keep complaining that same-sex relationships don't conform to a norm that heterosexual relationships do without the slightest basis in fact. My parent's marriage is different to your parent's marriage and it is different to the people who live across the road from me.... indeed it is different to my older brother who has a child and yet has never married his partner.

Your entire logic is based on the belief that because it hasn't existed, it shouldn't exist. The same argument could have been (and probably was) used for denying women the right to vote and civil rights for blacks.

Extending a franchise doesn't change the existing rights of those that are married.

"My point is that if gay community do not promote a monogamous lifetime commitment then the word ‘marriage’ does not accurately to describe their relationship."

I would have thought the fact that so many gay people are asking for the right to marry would show that many of them do indeed want to "promote a monogamous lifetime commitment". It is people like you that are intent on denying people this right that are therefore promoting the opposite of what they believe in.

The fact that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce does not mean that ALL marriages will end in divorce. I do not assume that every straight couple that is about to marry is going to divorce. And I do not judge those that are married by the same measure that I would judge those that divorced.

I have always heard the marriage equality argument that if two people love each other then why cant they marry.
Why has nobody ever questioned the gay community what is their exact interpretation of marriage. Do they believe marriage is a lifetime commitment to one sexual partner. US Studies have shown that most gays support open relationships with other sexual partners which contradicts the mainstream understanding of marriage.The last US census poll showed that gay couples amounted to only 1% . I think the other 99% should have a better understanding of gay relationships before redefining a core element of society.